Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Greenwich Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Planning Board - Wednesday, 2nd July, 2025 6.30 pm
July 2, 2025 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the planning board. Filming and recording is allowed, but must not disturb proceedings. Flash photography is not permitted. I remind all members, officers and speakers that they must use the microphone to speak and must speak clearly into it when making an address. Only those public speakers who have requested and have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speaker will be permitted to address the meeting. Speakers' comments must be relevant to the application and planning matters, and you should not repeat comments already made. Once you have made your address, you will not be permitted to make further comments unless I invite you to do so. I retain the right to reduce time given to speakers, councillors up to five minutes, accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups for, individuals to, the applicants and their teams 10. On item four, I have George Jackson. No, no, I just need to know you're here. I'll take it you're here. Alex Hittman, Matt Gore, Clive White, Jack Williams, Oliver Parsons and Alec Korcheff. On item five, I have Bowden, I'm not even going to go there, Lee Christie and Matt Rudyard. Item one, apologies for absence. Apologies for absence have been received from Councillor Sandra Bauer. I believe apologies for lateness have been extended on behalf of Councillor Byrne Mulligan and Councillor Claire Burke McDonald. Item two, urgent business. An officer's addendum in regards to item four, the VIP trading state, was published in advance of the meeting and has been provided in paper copy here as well. And the applicant's briefing in respect of item four was also provided to members directly in advance of the meeting. Item three, declarations of interest. I see none. Item four, plot A, VIP trading estate, Anchor and Hope Lane, London, SE7-7TE, reference 250717F. Lillian. Thank you chair, good evening members. Today we are requesting the panel to consider planning application 25-0717F for the redevelopment for an industrial logistics warehouse with ancillary office, creation of new access and associated parking, servicing, landscaping and other associated works. The application site is located at Plot A within the VIP trading estate. The site is situated in Charlton Riverside, which is identified as an opportunity area and a strategic development location within the London Plan and Greenwich Core strategy. The area has historically been associated with industry, particularly as a location for manufacturing and warehousing. The site is in a flood zone three and is located within an area benefiting from flood defences. The site has a public transport accessibility level of four on a scale of zero to six, with six being the most accessible. The site adjoins the Charlton Riverside conservation area to the north. Plot A has an area of 0.857 hectares and is located in the south-western part of the VIP trading estate. The site currently contains a warehouse and office building located along the northern boundary, whilst the remainder of the site is made up of hard standing currently used for parking and storage. There is a row of mature trees situated on the western site boundary, adjacent to the fencing. These trees are subject to a tree protection order. Land to the east and south of the subject site are industrial units. These include the Roperie Business Park and Charlton Gate Business Park. These units range from single to triple storeys in height, incorporate pitched roofing and are predominantly metal cladding. Land to the north is residential. The site adjoins the Charlton Riverside conservation area, which includes the locally listed Atlas Gardens and Derrick Gardens. The adjoining dwellings are two storeys in height and constructed from brick. There is a strip of land located between the existing site access and the residential properties, which is currently used for car parking. To the west, on the opposite side of Anchor and Hope Lane, are further commercial and industrial units. These units are predominantly two storeys in height, incorporate pitched roofing and are predominantly metal cladding. The only exception to this is the development to the north-west, which is constructed from brick. On the site context plan, I'll just point out the site, Atlas Gardens and Derrick Gardens to the north, which are locally listed. The rest of VIP Trading Estate to the north-east. Roperie Business Park to the east. Charlton Gate Business Park to the south. Anchor and Hope Lane runs along the west of the site. Roperie Business Park to the north, Bugsby's Way. And moving on to street frontage photos. So these photos are taken from Anchor and Hope Lane, looking towards the west of the subject site. You'll see the existing trees running along the western boundary and the existing warehouse. These photos are also taken from Anchor and Hope Lane. This photo is from the corner of Anchor and Hope Lane and Estate Road, looking north-west. You can see the existing warehouse that's built up along the pedestrian footpath. And this photo is taken from Anchor and Hope Lane, looking within the middle part of the site. This photo is taken from Estate Road, looking north-east of the site. There's the existing warehouse and there's an existing office building. And there's another photo just looking directly north, where you can see, again, the warehouse built up against the pedestrian footpath. With regards to Atlas Gardens, you can see here the two-storey dwellings with pitched roofs constructed of brick. And also, between the subject site and Atlas Gardens, there is a car park. With regards to Derrick Gardens, which are further north, these are also very similar to the Atlas Gardens dwellings, in the sense that they're two-storey. They've got a pitched roof and they're constructed of brick. I've also included some surrounding industrial buildings within proximity to the site. So, the first here is a Sainsbury's warehouse, which is located directly west of Derrick Gardens. This single-storey brick commercial warehouse building is located along Anchor and Hope Lane, west of Atlas Gardens. This shopping park is located directly west of the site, along Anchor and Hope Lane. And then this is another angle of the brick, single-storey commercial unit that's north-west of the site. And then, with regards to Charlton Gate, which is the industrial estate that's located south of the subject site, you can see the existing warehouse, which is three-storey in height, that's directly south. That's taken from Anchor and Hope Lane with the trees. This photo is taken within the Charlton Gate area, and it's looking to the south of that warehouse. And this is also the additional warehouse within the same Charlton Gate, as seen from Anchor and Hope Lane. So, moving on to planning history. With regards to planning history, there are three applications relevant to the subject site. The first is 000-1987-F, which was approved on 1 November 2000 for the erection of a new single-storey building to form offices and site security office with parking and landscaping. This application relates to the existing small office building fronting the site access. The applicant has stated that this building is used by the existing operator for storage and distribution purposes, which is use class B8. The next permission is 13-1779-F, which was approved on 20 September 2013 for the change of use from B1, B2 and B8 to sui generis, use to provide a commercial vehicle hire, vehicle storage and maintenance depot, and siting of a porter cabin to provide office and customer reception. Based upon these past applications, it is understood the site as an existing employment use and is used for a combination of general industrial and storage distribution, which are use classes B2 and B8. The current operations do not have any restrictions. After conducting a recent site visit, it is evident that part of the site is operating as a last-mile service with every deliveries coming and going from the site. The third planning application that I would like to highlight is 16-4008-F. This application was a residential-led redevelopment proposal which spanned across plot A and plot B of the VIP trading estate. The application was refused by the Secretary of State through a planning appeal on 3 June 2020. Within this proposal, the site was proposed for mixed-use development at ground and first floor and residential above. The scheme was proposed to be 10 storeys in height. The key reason for refusal was the negative effect on the character and appearance of the area. With regards to site designations, the subject site is located within the Charlton Riverside Opportunity Area. Officers have regard to London Plan Policy SD1, which identifies such areas as focal points for growth and regeneration. In particular, the Charlton Riverside Opportunity Area is identified as having an indicative capacity of 8,000 new homes and 1,000 new jobs. Paragraph 2.0.4 of the London Plan outlines that many opportunity areas are already seeing significant development. They all have the potential to deliver a substantial amount of new homes and jobs that London needs. The subject site is also located within the Charlton Riverside Strategic Development Location. Paragraph 3.3.11 of the core strategy confirms that Charlton Riverside is a key regeneration area that provides a significant opportunity for new high-quality riverfront development. The area will be transformed into an attractive and vibrant mixed-use urban quarter providing 3,500 to 5,000 new homes. The area has the potential to offer new community and education facilities, space for small businesses, new employment opportunities, accessible open spaces and improvements to Charlton Rail Station. The 2017 Charlton Riverside Supplementary Planning Document provides detailed guidance for development within the SDL. The subject site forms part of the central section of Charlton Riverside and the neighbourhood centre which has the greatest potential for redevelopment. Figure 5.3 and 5.4 of the Charlton Master Plan SPD, which is shown on screen, identifies the potential for mixed residential and commercial uses on the subject site. The SPD goes on to state that the subject site has also been identified as a location where significant employment uses might be retained. This is shown on the screen. All purple areas on the map are parcels with potential for significant employment uses. The application seeks full planning permission for the redevelopment for an industrial logistics warehouse with ancillary office, creation of new access, associated parking, servicing, landscaping and other associated works. With regards to land use, the scheme would allow for use class B2, which is general industrial, B8, which is storage and distribution, and EG III, which is industrial processes. I would like to highlight to members that although the proposal does not provide any residential, as suggested by the 2017 Charlton Master Plan SPD, there is strong support for employment and industrial intensification under the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan and the Core Strategy, which is to be afforded more weight when compared to the SPD. The SPD is guidance only. Chapter 6 of the NPPF states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The NPPF goes on to state that planning policies must pay particular regard to facilitating development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including by identifying suitable locations for uses such as logistics. Additionally, the NPPF sets out the planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors. This includes making provision for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations that allow for the efficient and reliable handling of goods. The London Plan Policy, D3, states that development must make the best use of land by following a design-led approach that optimises the capacity of the site. Policy Plan E4 and E7 seek to maintain a sufficient supply of land in London to meet current and future demand for industrial and related functions and support the intensification of industrial uses. Policy E7 goes on to state that development plans and development proposals should be proactive and encourage the intensification of business uses and use classes B1C, which is now class EG III, B2 and B8, occupying all categories of industrial land. Policy EA2 of the core strategy provides specific policy for economic development at Charlton Riverside, confirming that employment in the Charlton Riverside SDL is to be consolidated to maximise the use of the land whilst maintaining employment levels in the waterfront area. Furthermore, Policy EA2 states that the borough will seek to maximise the contribution to employment in Greenwich from sites in existing or previous employment use. The scheme would regenerate an underutilised site which supports the economic and orderly use of land. The scheme would also provide employment opportunities for the surrounding area, equivalent to 42 to 81 jobs within the borough, which would be a significant improvement when compared to existing conditions on site, which is an estimated nine full-time jobs. The site comprises an existing floor space of 579.8 square metres gross internal area and the proposal would increase this quantum to 4,838 square metres gross internal area, which is an adequate intensification of the site. It is also highlighted that the council's regeneration team reviewed the application and raised no concerns with the site being retained as an employment use. In view of the associated benefits and compliance with the NPPF, London Plan and Local Plan, the redevelopment for an industrial logistics warehouse with ancillary office is considered to be acceptable in principle. The proposal would be located in the southeastern section of the site and would consist of a three-storey warehouse building which is proposed to operate 24 hours, seven days a week, although at a reduced service between 6pm and 6am. The warehouse reaches an internal height of 12.5 metres and an external height of 18 metres. The warehouse would have a gross external area of 5,172 square metres and would comprise the main warehouse floor plus mezzanine and two office floors. The proposed scheme would be setback from the northern boundary by 33.2 metres, the southern boundary by 2.6 metres and the western boundary by 14.1 metres. The scheme would be constructed along the eastern boundary with a zero metre setback. The proposed scheme would provide 10 car parking spaces and two blue badge spaces along the western boundary of the site. This is a reduction to the 30 car parking spaces that currently exist. 20% of all spaces would be provided with active electric vehicle charging points with passive provision provided for the remaining 80%. 20 short-stay cycle parking spaces would be provided within two covered and secure stores located adjacent to the proposed pedestrian access point. Additionally, four short-stay spaces will be provided in the form of Sheffield stands adjacent to the building entrance. It is noted the site does not currently contain any cycle parking. Pedestrian access to the site would be provided by the introduction of a dedicated pedestrian access point on the site's western boundary, providing access from Anchor and Hope Lane. An internal crossing would then be provided to the site's main office entrance. It is proposed to widen and enhance the existing site access from the estate road and to create a secondary vehicle egress to Anchor and Hope Lane, which is for the exit of emergency vehicles only. So just with regards to the plan on screen, I'll just quickly point out that we have the existing site access. We've got waste located within the northwest of the site. This is the pedestrian access from Anchor and Hope Lane. We've also got the covered cycle parking and the four long-stay cycle parkings. We've got our two blue-badged spaces and the remaining car parking running along the west of the site. And the emergency vehicle egress is down towards the southwest corner of the site. The scheme would include office floor space at both first and second floor and an open warehouse mezzanine would be located at first floor. At roof level, plant storage would be located above the office space. The scheme would also include an extensive number of solar panels across the pitched portion of the roofing. It is important to note that the scheme's energy strategy is all-electric and utilises air-source heat pumps. The overall site-wide CO2 emissions would be reduced by at least 146% beyond building regulations, with 15% through lean efficiency measures and 131% through green renewable energy. There is no shortfall in the zero carbon target and so no carbon offset is due. The scheme's whole-life carbon strategy meets the GLA benchmarks. A BREAM design stage evaluation was also provided, which predicts an excellent rating with a score of 81%. The application seeks to retain all existing established trees on site and would provide additional landscaping, which includes five semi-mature trees, along with instant hedge and ornamental planning. The retention of existing trees combined with new landscaping would result in an aesthetic improvement on site when compared to existing conditions. It is noted 30.19% biodiversity net game would be achieved on site. Further details of landscaping and biodiversity would be secured by conditions. And I'll just point out the five additional semi-mature trees and the hedge is located along the northern boundary here. A metal fence is proposed along the north and western boundaries. A solid sliding gate is also included to the north. It is acknowledged that the transparent design of the fence is a positive approach, which would maximise views of the existing and proposed vegetation from the streetscape. Additionally, it is proposed to incorporate artwork, which is sympathetic to the heritage of the area, into the design of the fence along Anchor and Hope Lane. This was requested by a community group during the pre-application community engagement stage. It is noted the specific design of the artwork has not been finalised, however further details of the boundary treatment would be secured by condition. With regards to elevations, it is noted that applicant engaged in multiple proactive meetings with officers and different design options were discussed to ensure that development appropriately integrates with the surrounding context, including Atlas and Derrick Gardens. So I'd just like to highlight this was the design put forward at the first pre-application meeting with council. As you can see, it's got a curved roof profile and there's quite a lot of yellow that was proposed within the office element. This northern elevation here was what was originally submitted under the application. Following a discussion with our urban design officer, the design was amended and this was the final product on the right-hand side of the screen. The revised elevations of the scheme were supported by officers, including the council's urban design officer and include the following design revisions. The office element of the scheme has been articulated through different material treatment to provide more variety and interest from the streetscape. A simplified colour palette has been adopted and includes modest and muted tones which are more sympathetic to the landscape. Windows have been modified to include projecting frames to increase variety in the fenestration and the GLI logo has been reduced inside along the western elevation. With regards to views of the proposal from neighbouring land, the proposal would not appear out of context when viewed from the public realm. Warehouses which adjoin the site range from single to triple storey and incorporate pitched roofing. It is noted views of large-scale warehouses are extremely prominent along the streetscape of Anchor and Hope Lane as demonstrated by the site photos earlier in the presentation. The sectional plan on screen shows that the scheme is generally in keeping with existing warehouses to the south of the site in terms of scale and height. And I'm just showing on screen that the proposed warehouse is in blue here. You can see the pitched roof form and directly south is the Charlton Gate Business Park Warehouse which is an extremely similar height and it's also got the pitched roofing. The only exception to the streetscape is the Charlton Riverside Conservation Area to the north which includes two-storey dwellings at Atlas Gardens and Derrick Gardens. Nevertheless, that appropriate siting and scale of the scheme aids in achieving a sympathetic design which generally respects the adjoining residential dwellings. The proposal would be situated within close proximity to the south and east boundaries and by doing so, a greater setback is achieved from the northern boundary of the site. Moreover, the siting of the proposed footprint would be sympathetic to the existing established trees situated along the west boundary whilst also allowing for new plantings along the northern boundary of the site. All existing and proposed vegetation would essentially act as a buffer between the site and neighbouring dwellings. A townscape and visual appraisal was submitted with the application which is a useful tool to help gauge how the scheme may present from different viewpoints in relation to the northern residential dwellings. I would like to point out that the specific detailing of the scheme in terms of articulation, colours and materials which as previously mentioned have been revised since the application was originally submitted have not been updated on the following images. The visual representations show the proposed building massing and do not model the proposed landscaping and boundary enhancements. With regards to views from Atlas Gardens, it is acknowledged the scheme would present as larger in scale when compared to existing conditions. However, the scheme would sit below the ridgelines of the dwellings and would largely be obscured by existing built form. The scheme would only be visible between gaps of the dwellings which is an appropriate outcome. Views of the scheme from Anchor and Hope Lane adjoining Derrick Gardens are also limited. The height of the scheme would sit below the eaves of the dwellings along the street and as such the proposal would not present as visually bulky nor overly dominant when viewed from this portion of the streetscape. In a similar manner, the scheme would sit below the eaves of dwellings when viewed from Derrick Gardens which ensures the proposal would remain predominantly obscured from view. The proposed siting of the scheme towards the rear boundary of the site as well as appropriate building heights ensure that the proposal would not result in inappropriate visual impacts to the adjoining residential dwellings. In terms of heritage, the scheme would be within the vicinity of locally listed buildings within Atlas and Derrick Gardens. As such, the proposal has the potential to result in indirect impacts to the group of locally listed buildings. This was assessed by the Council's Conservation Officer who set out within Consul T comments that the development would represent less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed buildings and wider conservation area. However, this concern must be weighed against public benefit. The appropriate built form, materials and landscaping as previously described would result in an improved public realm when compared to existing conditions on site. Additionally, the scheme would be responsible for providing increased economic growth, greater employment opportunities and an appropriate use which aligns with the industrial nature of the area. As such, the considerable public benefits associated with the scheme outweighs the less than substantial harm which may be caused to the adjoining locally listed buildings and broader conservation area. The Council's Conservation Officer ultimately raised no concerns with the scheme. With regards to residential amenity, it is considered the proposal would not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjoining occupiers by reducing the amount of daylight, sunlight, privacy or an increased sense of enclosure. It is highlighted to members that the scheme fully accords with BREE guidelines. As demonstrated on the screen, the office portion of the scheme would be set back 49.4 metres from the closest dwellings to the north which is appropriate to mitigate impacts to adjoining residents. With regards to transport, the Council's Highways Officer raised no concerns with the scheme. It is highlighted to members that a transport addendum was recently submitted and it is important to note that the addendum included a survey of the existing tenant's vehicle movements to and from the subject site whereas the transport statement submitted with the application solely relies on the TRIX database which is a more general way to assess vehicle movements. The survey results which are shown on screen found that the existing total daily vehicle movements were 271 which was higher than the estimate provided by using the TRIX database. The majority of the vehicles entering and exiting the site were cars and light goods vehicles. It is acknowledged the proposed scheme anticipates a higher number of movements being by HCV when compared to the existing tenant operations however overall there would be a net loss in vehicle movements. As such the scheme would have an insignificant impact on the road network. With regards to noise it was considered that the existing noise climate at the monitoring position shown on screen is largely dominated by traffic on the local road network namely the roundabout connecting Anchor and Hope Lane and Bugsby's Way. HGV traffic was noted on the road serving the current operations on site as well as adjoining industrial plots. It was concluded that the vehicle noise from the proposed development would likely be indistinguishable from traffic noise on Anchor and Hope Lane and Bugsby's Way. The total flows predicted on the local road network are not dissimilar to the existing flows and are therefore not expected to significantly increase the existing noise levels that are currently experienced at nearby noise sensitive receptors. Though activity within the proposed development may occur during quieter periods of the night vehicle movements are not expected to be more than one LGV per hour between 9pm and 2am and no more than one LGV and one HGV per hour between 2am and 4am. The infrequency of these movements is expected to be similar to the existing conditions during these periods and therefore are not expected to be readily noticeable. A delivery and servicing plan and noise management plan are conditioned to further manage noise from the site. With regards to air quality the proposed development is air quality neutral regarding building emissions and transport emissions. The predicted air quality impacts from operational phase traffic generation associated with the scheme would be negligible regarding NO2 PM10 and PM2.5 Moreover, the scheme's energy strategy is all electric utilising air source heat pumps. As no combustion sources are proposed for the energy supply no local air quality impacts are anticipated. The council's environmental protection officer has raised no objections to the scheme subject to imposing conditions such as compliance with air quality mitigation measures, construction environment management plan and non-road mobile machinery. One public comment was received for this application. Key themes are summarised on the screen and have been addressed within the planning board report. The following obligations would be secured to mitigate any impacts arising from the development and to ensure compliance with relevant policies within the development plan. £100,000 towards road infrastructure improvements, £2,000 towards active travel improvements, £50,000 towards bus stop enhancements, £48,380 towards Greenwich local labour and business service and safeguarding of land required to provide east-west route for TFL bus, pedestrian and cyclist access. Section 24 of the planning board report provides a full list of planning obligations to be secured in the Section 106 legal agreement. In summary, the proposed development would result in a range of benefits which include the regeneration of an underutilised site which supports the economic and elderly use of land, optimisation of industrial floor space from 579.8 square metres GIA to 4,838 square metres GIA to provide modern employment space for a single occupier, achieve BREEAM excellent, air quality neutral, predicted CO2 savings of 146%, 30.19% biodiversity net gain and 0.16 urban greening factor, provide significant employment opportunities through the construction and operational phase of the development which would be equivalent to 42 to 81 jobs within the borough, a significant uplift in cycle parking and electric charging provision to encourage sustainable transport, high quality architecture that respects the surrounding area and obligations secured to mitigate any impacts arising from the development. Members are requested to consider officers' recommendation to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a section 106 legal agreement. Thank you. Thanks, Lillian. Just quickly before I go into questions, Callum, you came in right on the deadline so you're okay but I need to ask did you have any declarations of interest? No, Chair. And have you read the report? Yes, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. I'll ask you the same question about declarations of interest but as you missed. Yep, I have no declarations of interest and I understand that I can't participate or vote on this item so find me that. Thank you. Thanks, Claire. Questions for the officer? Quick on the draw, the pair of you. I'll go Lade, Pat, David. Thank you. I thought you were going to call me last. Thank you, Chair. So I've got two questions. The first one is around the consultation that was held. I note that there was only one response you said and the objection was the question or the objection was satisfied by the response given by officers so I'm supposing it was no longer an objection, quote on unquote. I'm rather surprised because I'm looking at the street and it's a street that I'm quite familiar with. that there were not too many objections. There was just one. So I'd like to know one. What format of consultation was done? Was it meeting? Was it face-to-face? Was it by Zoom? And what types of consultation was held? That's the first question. The second question is around the transport. you noted there that there will be 50,000 given towards bus, I can't remember what it was called, a bus, and I know that there's no bus route that goes into Anchor and Lane. There's none at the moment. They're all on Box B Way. Correct me if I'm wrong. Is that one that goes in? 486. 486 goes into Anchor Lane, where this will be because Anchor Lane is 486 goes round that way. If you could kindly show the map. So 486 they go right onto Box B Way. Which is the bottom half. So what you do, you come on the road parallel to this side is Bugsby's Way. You've then got the roundabout and from the roundabout to Anchor and Hope Lane. So this site, the entrance is on that roundabout and then what you've got, when you go beyond Derrick and Atlas Gardens the site opens up and becomes part of a wider industrial area. So what would be helpful is to know exactly, except I'm mistaken, exactly where this site is. Is it possible to widen that? If you look at the yellow dot that yellow dot is in Anchor and Hope Lane but the roundabout So the buses go up and around that roundabout 472 and the 486 and the 180 as well. Thank you. So just one question then. Thank you. I think it's worth clarifying that there's a difference between the consultation that the council carries out in terms of the statutory consultation and the consultation that the developer has carried out. Yeah, so in terms of the consultation that the council have done, that's by way of a site notice, press notice and letters direct to neighbours. In terms of the consultation that the applicant has carried out, it's probably best to direct that question to them when they speak. Yeah, a site notice, a press notice and letters. Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much for that very detailed presentation. I think you answered a lot of my questions. Can I just ask you, what is the difference in height between the building that is there at the moment and the new building and my other question is, you say, and we saw that, I'm thinking about, we're losing again, loss of 18 parking spaces, but you say that there's a strip of land between the site and Atlas Gardens which is used, it's not included in this presentation, in this particular application, but I just wondered if that was going to remain or if that was going to be lost, and just if I can put in a third question quickly, I might have missed it, but I'm concerned about the view from Atlas and Derek Gardens, what will they actually be, I don't know, what will they be looking at in the north, and will they have, when you talk about a hedge, is that, I mean, the other areas got trees around it, and how high is the edge going to be, and actually what will they be looking at, those people, what will their view be? Thank you. So we don't have the exact height of the existing building, but we're going to go back to the section drawing at the start, which gives you an idea of how tall it is. So this is the existing building, it's essentially one story, but a very tall story, and the new building is substantially taller than that, probably twice, twice the height, yeah. we've received this, on the supplementary agenda it says, that apparently there was a mistake, and the top to the top of the ridge, it's 18 metres, I don't know, yeah. Yes, thank you councillor, yeah, that was a mistake on my end, it was a typo, so it's actually 18 metres to the ridge line of the pitched roof. So the car parking is external to the subject site, and that'll be staying as is, that's not proposed to be changed under this application. Who uses that car park then, the one that's already there on that strip of land? Is it a public car park, or is it used by the people on the various factory sites? Pat, my understanding of that strip of land, it's on a private, it's on a separate land title, which is not owned by the applicant, it is, Mr. Rokeby there owns the small strip, so as you come into that site, I think on the photograph you can see a grey area which is adjacent to the rear of Derrick Gardens, I believe the first one isn't, yeah, that's on a separate land title, it doesn't form part of the application site, but is a vacant plot of land, well, yeah, it's just vacant space owned by this gentleman here, okay, so it's not, I don't think it's part of a car park, it's not car park in space, it's just vacant space, which then provides more distance from the applicant's site to the rear of the gardens, yeah? Microphone. From, yes, the people in the houses, Atlas Gardens, what view will they have, please, of the site from their houses, from the homes? Thank you, councillor, for the question. So, I did highlight that there is proposed landscaping along the northern boundary of the subject site, there is a landscape plan that will be required to be submitted by condition which will have specific details of the trees proposed to be planted and their heights, along with the hedge as well, so I would say that there would be a lot of screening of vegetation which would block out views of the proposal, however, obviously, a portion will still be visible, but we have throughout the course of the application, we have secured muted building tones, it won't be reflective. Brilliant, do you want to show the illustration which shows the five semi-mature trees? That might give a clearer idea. You can sort of see there in that visual, so there's the bottom photo. Yeah, so this is the access into the industrial estate, the residential properties are here, so that's the back gardens of atlas gardens, I think, so the view will be trees and then behind it, the warehouse, this distance is approximately 50 metres and then obviously the main warehouse section is further set back beyond that. It's just that it said that was going to be hedging rather than trees and I feel that hedging isn't, you know, it needs to be trees. I've always said five semi-mature trees. It's both. Yeah, it was hedging there, Bill. Yeah, but with five semi-mature trees as well and a whole range of other foliage, some plants and whatever. Yeah, back. So see the five trees plus some more. And then you've got that flat car parking and entry space before you get to the construction. Just out of curiosity, what is the distance from the build to the front or the side elevation? 20, 30 metres? Give or take, yeah? From where, sorry? From the rear of Derrick, from the rear wall of the Derrick and Atlas Gardens properties to the side elevation of the proposal. Distance is 30, between 30, 40 metres? There you go. There you go. 50. 50. Oh. These canals. I've already got it. Okay. You okay with that? Yep. David. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Lillian. So, I mean, obviously, there are very many positive aspects of the application. I just wanted if I get some clarity on one or two areas which are a little more concerning, potentially. So, one of my concerns, clearly, is the accessibility, the safe accessibility from Charlton Station, which is very close to the site, given we want everyone to be coming by public transport. And safe accessibility for pedestrians from Charlton Station is very difficult. that Angustine, sorry, the Antigalligan Junction is awful. It's long needed some improvement. You have the crossing is very difficult and so forth. And for cyclists, I mean, I'm happy cycling down Anchor and Hope Lane, and it's five lanes, but not all cyclists would be, particularly not novice cyclists we're trying to encourage and so forth to cycle. So, I just wondered if any thought had been given, you know, taking up what TfL said about healthy streets and so forth, in their submission, any thought had been given to how this application, given the focus on sustainable transport, particularly for staff, how that could, you know, how that could make a contribution. Secondly, I mean, I know about the bus shelters, but that didn't actually strike me as the most important ambition, improving the bus shelters, but there we are. I thought there were ways, better ways of spending that money maybe. Secondly, I'm interested as to why the urban greening factor is just 0.16, which is below the 0.4. We've seen all the landscaping. I assume it's got green roofs or solar panels on the roof, but there could be green walls and things. So, I just wonder why that's so low, the UGF, and is there a way to bridge that, and something, obviously, I'll ask the applicant. And thirdly, in terms of London Plan Policy T7, which deals with logistics and sites and so forth, I'm just slightly concerned that it's not on a level of compliance, you know, have we gone through that hierarchy of whether trips can be made by rail, by river, and so forth, obviously, ask the applicant, and does it represent a net reduction in particularly HGVs? You said it didn't. There seems to be a disconnect between what the transport officer highways are saying in their representation on page 40, where they're saying there'll be more trips, and what you said, which is there'll be fewer trips than current, so there is disconnect. But even if your verbal reassurance on that, which contradicted slightly what the transport officer highways said, is right, I'm still concerned about the increase in HGVs, which are not electric, though we'll ask the applicant, maybe they have got some electric ones, and therefore will increase air quality. And I wonder if your air quality measures included scope two and scope three, so they included all the transport movements and so forth. Okay, that's enough for the moment. Thank you. Thank you, councillor, for your questions. So in regards to the first question about accessibility to the site, so I'd just like to highlight that there was an active travel zone assessment submitted with the application which was requested by Transport for London, and the ATZ identified the below, sorry, identified the following potential improvements to accessibility of the site. So the first was tactile paving at the access self storage and NNC access crossings to accommodate pedestrians from all walks of life and also maintenance of the eastbound Bugsby's Way bus stop. So we have secured a contribution of £2,000 in order to improve those two areas which was identified within the active travel zone assessment that was submitted, and Council's highways officer and TFL were happy with that. I thought you mentioned £50,000 for bus shelters, which just struck me as maybe not the best use of money, maybe putting in a cycle lane or, you know, new pedestrian crossings around the Ankenstein junction, so the anti-Galligan junction might be a better use of that money than improving the bus shelters. I mean, I think if members tonight wanted to redirect the funds that have been secured to something different, that's within your gift, but that's what TFL wanted, that's where they thought the money was best spent. Because it better more directly helps them with their revenue position, yeah. On the UGF factor, because it's a B2, B8 use, it doesn't actually need to comply with UGF, but obviously there is the increase in the biodiversity net gain, so that's why it doesn't comply with urban greening. On... T7... T7? Yeah. So... T7, yeah. So, I don't think it does contradict that policy, because it does say that, you know, distribution facilities should be supported provided they don't cause unacceptable impacts on the strategic road network. Both through the documents that have been provided by the applicant and the reviews that have been concluded internally by highways officers and TFL as well and our environmental health officers, they don't think there are unacceptable impacts resulting from this. And I think that leads on as well to probably your other question as well about the traffic movements and why the verbal presentation differs from what was in the report. And that was essentially because the applicant's team went out and did an actual survey of the traffic movements from the site, which wasn't included with the original planning application. So, the highways officer looked at the details that were submitted and they were based on a kind of general tricks database which looks at general movements from a site of this nature. Having been to the site, they've seen that every is coming to and from with HGVs and smaller goods vehicles and actually it's quite an intensive use of the site currently. So, the new site would be less, albeit there would be a greater proportion of HGV movements as a proportion of the movements. And just on T7F, one, reduce road danger, noise and emissions from freight trips. I think the air quality report that's been produced shows that there is a negligible increase in emissions. I don't, I think it's hard to say that it would directly reduce emissions because clearly there will be more HGV movements. So, I guess this policy needs to be considered in light of the other policies in the London plan which says that councils need to find areas for logistics, warehouses and support because they support the economy of London. So, and also, you know, the MPPF and the local plan policy which all supports these uses. So, it's hard. I mean, it is, it's a carbon neutral, it's not carbon neutral, an air quality neutral scheme but that doesn't deal with the emissions from the vehicles servicing the site. It deals with the emissions from the car parking. Isn't this on the assumption that all of these vehicles are going to be diesel or petrol? You know, we're going to speak to the applicant about whether they're going to use hybrid, hybrid or electric which will make a big difference. So, we'll come back, we'll ask the applicant. Yeah? Yeah, I believe so but as I say, the experts are here today. Okay. Any further questions? Callum. Thank you, Chair. Just a very quick one. Looking at the emergency services entrance on Anchor and Hope Lane, is there any figures on the width of that access area for them given on the drawings it looks considerably narrower than the main HGV entrance and just thinking about access for in particular fire engine, were there to be any fire on site and just turning points to access and so on. I mean, I know there aren't objections from the fire brigade and so one would assume they're satisfied with it. So, I'm fairly sure I've seen a tracking diagram. It shows a fire truck can get out of there but if you bear with me. Sorry, I know it's a... Yeah, no, I mean, it's a good question. It has been designed as an emergency exit for emergency vehicles. And also, these drawings can often look a little deceptive without the full scale on. might be better if, you know, you've actually got the photographs of the front of the entrance with the front gates. You took a photograph of the elevation. That will give you a good idea of the width of the road as you're entering the site. So... That is a tracking diagram that shows a fire truck leaving the site. via the main entrance rather than the emergency. That's the one on the right. Okay, okay. So, yeah, because it does look considerably wider in this one than from the further back view which may just be from the trees and so on. Sorry, that's really helpful. Thank you. Any further questions for the officer? No. David. Everyone's frustrated with me. So, I mean, this is a... As you know, and I've said it at previous planning boards, I've had some big issues in my wards where there are, in one case, at Macro, a logistics hub right next to residences and another within GMV area with the aggregates quarter. And I just have to ask this question about the proximity. Obviously, it's not in terms of, you know, overlooking and so forth. It's not an issue. But it just may be an issue in terms of noise, particularly if it's nighttime noise with vehicle movements and any industrial noises and so forth. And just wondered if light might be an issue as well, light shining into people at night and so forth. Just wondered if those issues had been fully addressed in the report and in necessary conditions to ensure there's no, you know, negative noise or emissions or lighting impact on the residents in Atlas and Derrick Gardens. Thank you, Councillor, for your question. So, in regards to noise, there was a specialist noise impact assessment report that was submitted that was reviewed by our environmental health officer. There were no issues raised. They didn't have any concerns. They just recommended standard conditions relating to noise, which has been included within appendix two. So, they are the construction environment management plan, the noise management plan, non-road mobile machinery and plant noise. With regards to light, they also reviewed the light specialist report that was submitted with the application. They raised no issues. They just requested two conditions, which was the construction environment management plan and external lighting. And the lighting plan was also compliant with guidelines. And can I just ask, I'm going back back again to parking. The development will lose, actually, 18 car parking spaces. Now, yes, hopefully, everybody can be persuaded to sort of use different modes of transport. But where does that, again, leave people who live in Atlas Gardens and around there? Because they're terraced houses, so they haven't got anywhere where they can off-street park. And I just wondered if any survey had taken that into consideration. Thank you. The parking spaces in question are on site, aren't they? They're on site. They're not on the highway path. Yeah, so the residents won't be able to use those parking spaces. No, what I'm saying is that they've lost on site 18 spaces. Therefore, they've got the number, I'll ask the applicant this, the number of people who are the employees are between 74 and 134. So if employees can't find a parking space on the land within the development, they will park on the local, you know, streets. And those, that's what I'm saying, those two streets in particular have actually, they're terraced houses, so they won't have any driveways or off-street parking. And I just wondered if that had been taken into consideration. I think Derek and Atlas Gardens do have permit. Do they? Does he? Does he have a... Just the other one? They've got permit parking within the cul-de-sacs. There's permit parking within there. Is there? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I think that was all I was going to say, that, yeah, they're CPZ, so. Okay. Any further questions for the officer? No? Thank you. Lillian, thank you very much. I now wish to call on George Jackson. Thank you. Good evening. I'm the founder and owner of the Jackson Lift Group of Companies. It's a business that's been operating in Greenwich since 1989. We employ over 600 people within the UK, and we're very proud to call Charlton Riverside our head office and our home. I also am a director and a majority shareholder in Roperie Business Park, and that's the business park that's adjacent to VIP. And I am speaking on behalf of my fellow directors and business owners in Roperie Business Park. Historically, the Charlton Riverside area has been an industrial heartland in London, and we've been saddened by the decline in industrial land and businesses across the city and in Greenwich, too. This is why we, the directors of Roperie Business Park and my own company, strongly support this proposal for Charlton Riverside as a direct neighbour, as I said, of the site. We have been working with Greater London Industrial for a number of years while they've developed their proposals. The results of their work on these proposals is a sustainable industrial scheme with a 30% biodiversity, a net gain and a target of bream excellence. The proposed buildings will be a vast improvement on the current site with a design that is clean and modern, whilst giving a subtle nod to the industrial heritage of Charlton Riverside. It will be easily able to co-assist with any future new homes or any other commercial space within the Riverside area. We are very pleased that the proposals have been designed for one single occupier, which will result in up to 135 jobs on the site. In my role as director of Rupert Business Park, I'm delighted to hear Greater London Industrial, sorry, Greater London Industrial and encouraging local employment and promoting the retention of employment skills in Charlton, particularly through the proposals which offer a range of job types to suit different skills, which we ourselves are committed to. As a local business, we are keen that the movement of vehicles to and from the site is well managed, and this is something we have discussed with Greater London Industrial at great length. We are especially pleased to see the proposals that were widely consulted on in our local area, not just with local businesses like ourselves, but with local residents of Derrick and Atlas Gardens. We know how important it is to get the right mix of development in this area and the views of all parts of the community needed to be given voice. We want to work with Greater London Industrial and other neighbours to help create a more sustainable local economy. Greater London Industrial's proposals would be a big step forward and set a useful president for development in the local area. Thank you, Chair and the Board members for the opportunity to speak this evening, and I hope that your support of your officer's recommendation for the approval of this scheme. Thank you. Thanks, George. Any questions for the speaker? David. George Jackson, is that right? Yes, sir. I met one of your employees on the train the other week, said that you were the largest lift company, lift servicing company in the country, which is excellent to have that on Charlton Riverside. I just wondered if you could tell us a bit about the current use of this site, which doesn't look terribly attractive, and what difference do you think, from the point of view of the whole ecosystem on Charlton Riverside, this development would make? Yes, thank you, sir. I'm usually pretty blunt. I mean, the actual situation there is very difficult at the moment. To be fair, in times past, it wasn't as bad. We have ENVRI, the parcel service, operating on the site at the moment, and their control, well, their lack of control of the vehicles leaves a lot to be desired, let me put it like that. So, as you were saying about vehicle movements, there are dozens and dozens of small vehicles coming to collect parcels where ENVRI delivered there by their HGVs in the daytime, and it's a chaotic situation, and that's probably putting it mildly, you know. So, we are absolutely confident that the new development will be a huge improvement on what is there now. It hasn't always been the case, haven't we? I haven't been there all the time. And we think we're very passionate about local employment and about employing people locally, and we feel that to have the improved industrial estate in that area will increase the local jobs considerably, if I may say so, rather than high-rise blocks of flats where most of the people are commuting to Canary Wolf and not doing anything for Greenwich. So, we believe in the employment in Greenwich, and we work very closely with GLI, and we believe they have the same aspirations as we do. Thanks, George. Pat? Obviously, you must work closely with the residents who live on Atlas Clothes and Derek Gardens, because of your situation and where you are. It's interesting that there has just been one objection to this application, and you do sort of wonder why. I'm asking you directly. Do you think it's because people are quite... have got used to sort of the comings and goings of industrial estate there? I'm trying to... Yes, madam. Madam, if I can be direct again. And it was myself who made the objection, because there were some difficulties with the actual positioning of the plan. It sort of wasn't quite in line with the... in my opinion, with our alignment of Robry Business Park. However, I discussed that directly with the developer, and we came to an amicable agreement that they weren't quite correct, and we were right, and therefore the plan. And so it was... it was nothing to do with the building. It was our land registry documentation vis-a-vis their land registry documentation. So I was the objector. All right. If I go back to... to our local residents in... in Derek Gardens, we work closely with them because they are our neighbours. They have spoken to me personally about the development. They are... the people who are vociferous there and who speak on behalf of the... of the gardens are, like ourselves, very much in favour of this... this particular development because previously they had, you know, 10-storey, 12-storey, 15-storey blocks of flats that were going to be built adjacent to their properties. So for them, this is a vast improvement on previous proposals that have been put forward. You know, so... one of the gentlemen stopped me the other day and asked me for my opinion about things and gave me his opinion as well. And generally, they are very much in favour of this compared with... with other proposals. Thank you, madam. Any further questions? No. George, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Alex Hickman. Thank you. Evening, Alex. You and your team have up to 10 minutes and I think you can call them in as and when the questions come. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Planning Board members for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm delighted that our proposals have been brought to members of the Planning Board with a recommendation for approval. At Greater London Industrial, we take pride in creating London's most sustainable and innovative industrial developments. Our proposed redevelopment of the VIP trading estate, this part of it, on Anchor and Hope Lane, would transform an underutilised brownfield site into a high quality industrial employment hub that respects both Charlton Riverside's heritage and its future. If approved, the development proposal would convert around 580 square metres of outdated warehouses into a modern flexible industrial building offering approximately 4,838 square metres, GIA. That's more than an eightfold increase in the usable industrial floor space under the roof and would create a productive place for local enterprise. That's particularly important when one considers that industrial land in London declined by almost 18% between 2001 and 2020. Greenwich alone has lost 41 hectares, at least 80 acres, of industrial land between 2015 and 2020, with another 70 hectares at risk. That trend threatens local jobs. A quick clarification on some of the numbers of job creation that we've talked about in the last half an hour. This space has been designed for a single occupier and we estimate the creation of between 42 and 81 jobs in Greenwich. The 74 to 134 that were mentioned earlier is a gross figure in a wider area, along with an annual contribution of 8.4 million gross value added. That will mean more revenue for local services, opportunities for reinvestment into the community and ensuring the right mix of housing, commercial and industrial uses in this part of the borough. This scheme not only contributes much needed industrial floor space but also establishes contemporary benchmark for how modern industrial developments can coexist with and complement new homes and other commercial space within Charlton Riverside. We're targeting BREAM Excellent, making this one of the most sustainable industrial buildings in the borough with air quality neutral status and a predicted 146% CO2 saving. As with all of our development schemes, sustainability is not an afterthought and it's been embedded into the design from the start. Solar panels on the roof, air quality mitigation and green buffering with carefully selected landscaping will ensure that this is environmentally friendly development, which is more pleasant to be around. With around 30% biodiversity net gain, this development outperforms typical industrial schemes and goes well above the policy of 10%. Semi-mature trees will be planted on the estate road with the hedging, while existing London plain trees along the western boundary are being retained to soften the visual impact and enhance local ecology. All of this will soften an area that currently lacks much greenery. The development will also provide a significant uplift in secure cycle parking, encouraging active commuting, along with dedicated electric vehicle charging infrastructure and improved pedestrian connectivity, the new entrance facing Anchor and Hope Lane. Sustainable methods of transport will be encouraged, including the use of e-cargo bikes, while all delivery vehicles will be FOURS accredited to ensure that operators are achieving exemplary levels of the best practice in safety, efficiency and environmental protection. The proposed architecture and design of the scheme draws from Charlton's industrial past while setting a fresh modern tone. The saw-toothed profile roof reflects historic warehouse typologies. A new frontage for the on-site office space provides a lighter, more welcoming view from the main road, while high-quality materials and new signage strengthen the sense of place. The result is a contemporary building that respects the area's identity while also looking to the future. Finally, I wanted to explain that before submitting this application, we undertook extensive consultation, not just with the council officers, who we've worked closely with for many years on the wider regeneration of Charlton Riverside, but also with the local community, including door-knocking at Derrick and Atlas Gardens, and meeting with local residents' group, Charlton Together. We were pleased that most of the feedback we received was positive, and particularly that local residents appreciated the steps we've taken to improve the local street scene and to manage impacts on the local area. We took feedback into account, including on the design of the building and the boundary treatment and landscaping. In some instances, we made changes to our plans pre-submission, and in others, we proactively requested the conditions are introduced by the council to ensure that local residents' voices are heard. Overall, we hope this development will serve as a catalyst and a precedent for high-quality, sustainable industrial development across Charlton Riverside. This is the kind of development that can deliver economic, environmental, and social value at a time when London desperately needs to retain industrial capacity support to support future some questions and bring the experts to answer them. Thanks, Alex. Questions for the speaker? Pat. Thank you, Chair. I just really have one question. The site, you say that it's going to be operating 24 hours, seven days a week. Now, I know that I've read that it won't be during the night, you know, sort of, it won't be operating at that sort of high level. Can you just sort of clarify exactly what you mean then to me by not operating? I mean, 24 hours, seven days a week, you know, what's going to happen at night? What about the noise? Because that carries more at night from, will there be any noise coming from the building? What about the vehicles, the HGV vehicles? Are they going to be coming through the night? That's the only, you know, issue that I have. You could really clarify that, please. One of our team will come and join me in a second, but just a quick answer to that. Is that as we build more modern buildings here and on other sites in London, what we're finding as we replace older buildings with more modern buildings is we're attracting more modern occupiers and tenants and companies. And on the whole, what we're finding with them is they've got more modern fleets. So more electric as a proportion versus diesel. So better air quality from them, better noise from them, etc. But at the moment, we don't know exactly, exactly what will happen on a day-by-day or hour-by-hour basis because we don't know exactly which tenant company might occupy it. So it kind of depends who ends up occupying the building. I'll just pass this sideways carefully. Thank you. Yeah, it's, I suppose it's quite, the existing use, I suppose there's no restrictions as we have at present on the site. So currently vehicles do come and go throughout the 24-hour period. It is just very critical for an industrial user to be able to have a 24-7 type use on the site. And it's not that they go at the same capacity. During the day is where more people are working, like you expect in all employment spaces in office buildings the same, there's a natural tapering off of people across the night. And there's very limited deliveries and so on. And trips in the night are much, much lower than you get during the day. But it is really important if you think of the sort of business, from a business function of someone taking this space, you could look at loads of different uses that could be there. If it's a food distribution user, as a basic example, they will be giving, delivering out to restaurants, hotels. They'll need to go out in the morning before rush hour. It might be 5 o'clock in the morning when they're going out or something like that because they need to get the goods across. Without that 24-7 facility, you just, businesses can't come here. And a lot of people, it will reduce the pool of people who would ever take this space. It will be managed really well, I suppose. We've got noise management plans agreed already, which will focus on, you know, how any service that does take place during the nighttime hours will take, how that will go about. Rules in place, which will be adhered to through conditions that will be submitted in terms of, you know, making sure people aren't doing anything silly, shouting out at night, all the basic things that are really quite, often quite common sense, really. But it's kind of important to have that as a, something that's put onto the tenant of the building, whoever that may be in the future. Dave. I was just thinking, thinking deeply about the point that's just been made. I don't know what my colleagues are going to say about this when we come to deliberate shortly, but it struck me this was a fairly exemplary scheme. I think you should be congratulated on that. I think George Jackson said a few moments ago that the promotion or the retention of jobs and skills is very important locally, and I think we all recognise that. We know that the pressures are for more homes in the borough, but we also know it's important to retain and promote good employment locally. And so, it's making me wonder, it's making me think, what is it then that limits the scale of your, of this development? I think there were a few points that were made earlier about, I think you made the point in your presentation about the way that you've been able to, in effect, quadruple or several multiplications of, of employment opportunities through these modern buildings. Why not go higher? People may not like that, but why not go higher? Say another story. More jobs, more jobs retained, more opportunities for more employers. This is a really good question. There's a balance between, I suppose, making sure something you're proposing is deliverable and will be suiting to that occupier and hit the sort of largest number of potential occupiers. People have tried multi-stacking uses and so on, and it's kind of a product that hasn't really worked that well. But I think we've looked at, there is, you know, as the officers presented, we are close to a conservation area and locally listed buildings, so we're very aware of that through the design process of producing something at an appropriate scale for the area, which we think we hopefully have got to the right balance of, which is delivering an uplift so you get more jobs, but also being sensitive to that environment at the moment. And I ultimately have an end product as well that's going to let well in the market, because we want this all to be successful. The eightfold increase in floor area, when I talked about being under the roof, I said under the roof because I'm not talking about the open storage space at the moment and the car parking space at the moment. So the eightfold figure is quite unusual because it's coming from a very low amount of, but it's just coming from a very, very low base. David. Thank you very much. I'm glad you're not going higher. So just I wanted to sort of pursue the previous point I was making around the net impact on emissions through transport and wondered, I mean, you're not the, as far as I can work out, you're building these hubs. I've looked at your website, but you're not the operator of the hubs. You lease them out. So what, in your view, in terms of potential clients you've been talking to would be the mix of last mile delivery by sustainable, i.e. electric means, and sort of HGVs, which very few of them do tend to be electric or hybrid. So what would be the mix? And to what extent, looking back at policy T7, to what extent, given this is fairly close to the railway, but not on it, and fairly close to the river, but not on it, to what extent would you be able to use neighbouring rail facilities or river facilities for long-distance logistics, or not your clients be able to use? I'll start off with the first part of that, I think. So, I mean, in terms of the potential tenant mix, there could be a whole range at this moment in time of who that could be. It could be a contribution to users. Because I think when you talk about electric vehicles, it's probably more of a parcel delivery service is the ones who sort of tend to have the microvehicles going in and out a lot. And, you know, that is not off the table, obviously, for this sort of side, but there is a number range of different distribution and storage uses there. I think from a sort of promoting electric vehicles and things like that going forward, I think it would definitely be something we look to explore through delivery servicing plans and travel plans that we could produce with conditions which are already on there. So we would deal through it through that way and provide suitable targets and so on to try and get that reduced. But it would, again, depend on the type of operator, how many electrical vehicles and so on would end up using. You're right on the HGVs. The technology, I don't think, is anywhere near there yet for that to happen. But when it comes down to the sort of other sort of vehicle movements, it will be dependent on the end tenant. And I think it's probably, we think this unit is, a lot of interest we hope is going to be from more local businesses to Greenwich and the south-east London area, which is positive. On that note, a lot of those businesses may not have the outlay to sort of deliver a fully, and afford a fully electric fleet of vehicles and so on, like you might expect from larger parcel-type deliveries who may be more fully on the line than that. So it will be really dependent on the end user. Jack, on that point, are you looking to install any EV charging points at the unloading base? So if you've got an electric HGV vehicle coming in, it would make good sense to actually plug them into a charger while they're being unloaded, because I think a lot of the problems are getting the amount of mileage per charge. So that might be something worth considering. So while you've got HGVs coming in, they're going to get unloaded in an hour or whatever. They can plug in. And that might be an incentive for someone that's using electric vehicles to have that already installed. I think with HGVs, I think even there's debate about whether hydrogen might actually be the route forward rather than electric going forward. I think it is... Sorry, George, you want to... When we started designing the first of the warehouses three or four years ago for the first that we built, we started looking into doing a lot of research, actually, with CPRE and their infrastructure team on the take-up in the UK at the moment of tech, technology for electrification of the really large fleet. And there were various, from memory, there were various systems which could either come across... Obviously, you don't want to clog up the access into and out of a warehouse. And so the various systems either would come across a very high level and plug in from above or come from below. And then in the interim, you're absolutely right, there's been more evolution on hydrogen. So it hasn't... We haven't reached the answer yet. But you're absolutely right, the speed of charging is something that's crucial because you want to turn your vehicle around quickly and get out and get on with the next job. And that is... And so outside of our hands, outside of our scope, we'll wake up one day and we'll find that somebody in probably California has very, very fast charging of the very, very large vehicles, where the battery isn't so large that it becomes counterproductive on a really big vehicle. And we'll find that, you know, the Western world is entirely electrified. But a lot of that's sort of out of our hands. But we're... And I suppose upstream of that is the issue of how do you get enough power to the depot? Because what we'll find across the whole of Greater London is that everybody who wants to be as green as they possibly are, technology will exist, but the national grid won't be able to provide it, although I think we're building a fleet of small modular nuclear reactors which will actually save us at the 11th hour. There's lots available on Google about that. Callum? So just on that, do you feel confident that the way that it's designed at present, you would be able to retrofit whatever appropriate technology it is as and when that does become what ultimately the market is demanding from your tenants? Absolutely. And that's something we've absolutely wanted to go for because we're really quite far advanced in that. They desperately want to do this, not just for their own cynical PR reasons, but for economics as well, because it's going to be the case. It's much cheaper to have an electric fleet than it is to have an old diesel fleet. So they want it to happen. So we've designed it in to attract those businesses because we want those tenants as customers. Pat. Thank you, Chair. So you are the developers. What if some company comes along to you, like every, and they want to use facilities for parcel delivery, and that's a whole different ballgame. Yeah. How can we be convinced that that won't happen? They're a really good example to use as a potential occupier because the building we're putting up hopefully, I don't know how to put this without sounding horrible, but hopefully will attract people who operate a business in a more considerate manner than they do. More organized. There you go. I think it's probably a point that when you get a plan of permission, if you do get a plan of permission for something like this, the amount of conditionality which is put on in terms of the management and whether it's delivery, servicing, travel plan in terms of number of, you know, increasing the amount of people using public transport coming to work and so on, nighttime management. It's incredible. You know, it's such a huge amount of conditionality there anyway to make sure it's done in an appropriate manner, regardless of the client would want to do that anyway, which obviously the existing has the 24-7 and, you know, it's a bit less easy to control, obviously, at this moment in time, but went through this process. Any further questions? No? Alex, check. Thank you very much. Members now open for deliberation. Any comments? David, Pat, Dave. Well, thank you very much. Could I thank the officer and the applicants? I mean, obviously, I'm not keen generally on logistics operations, where they're largely hydrocarbon, but I must say this does seem to be, given this currently broadly or has been a logistics operation, I think this looks at a vast improvement, a vast improvement for the site. It's a vast improvement, as we were discussing, for the sort of business ecosystem within Charton Riverside, and a significant, obviously, improvement for the jobs and the local economy. I think also is a significant improvement in terms of biodiversity and landscaping. So, overall, I'm very supportive of this proposal. My one slight issue is that I thought, rather than just supporting new bus shelters, as much as I do use buses all the time, so I mean, I use those bus stops as well, I'm in favour of new bus shelters, I just thought, but I actually read in the report now that, which I hadn't seen, that there will be a, as part of the permanent C4, there will be a leg down Anchor and Hope Lane on the eastern side of segregated cycleway, so that might meet the cycle infrastructure. But I would like to see some effort put in to make it much easier to cross to Charton Station, which is quite difficult at the moment. So, I don't know whether we can just slightly loosen the wording, which I couldn't actually see the wording, but slightly loosen the wording to say that there was £2,000 for streets and £150,000 for bus shelters, but to say towards sustainable transport infrastructure, which leaves it, you know, so it could in the end be bus shelters, but that just leaves it slightly more open, so it could be used for a pedestrian crossing and so forth. So, if we're happy with that slight change, then I'm very happy to support this proposal. Beth? Yes, I think we could accommodate that, yeah. You okay with it, David? Yeah. Pat? Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'm very happy to support this proposal, and it's obvious that the people of Atlas and Derrick Gardens have been, you know, people, they have been consulted, and it's obvious that they're quite happy with this. I just would reiterate that those, you know, the greening and the trees, I know that you're putting sort of semi-mature trees, I'm not quite sure what you mean by semi-mature trees, but I would like to think that, yeah, we all know what happens to trees, but yes, I would like to see as much greenery separating the houses that were built, you know, in the 1950s and 70s, lovely terraced houses. I think that that's the only sort of issue that I have, if we could make sure that it is, yeah, as much greenery as I can. But thank you. I will support this. If we're both around in 20 years' time, Pat, we'll see how big they've got. Dave? I want to echo the points that David has made. I agree with him 100%. I wouldn't like to give the impression, though, that I would be advocating in this particular scheme an eight-storey, ten-storey industrial unit. I was just simply making the point for general reference or for future reference that there might be opportunities, positive opportunities for the borough in terms of jobs, employment and so on. We did think in terms of stacking modules, modular buildings might be a part of the general offer. That was the only point I'd make. Otherwise, I'd say it was an exemplary scheme and I'd be happy to support it. Lardy. I am totally in support of this application. It's definitely a clear investment in the economic future of our borough is the fact that there is going to be job creation, there's going to be retention of talents within the borough, which is really good. And it's also the fact that the applicant's effort to align with our sustainability objectives is very much, it's something I'm very much in support of. And I also like the fact that they did consult and obviously from listening to Mr. Jackson, it shows that there was an active consultation. If you notice, I didn't ask any question later about consultation. So I'm 100% in support of this application. Thanks, Lardy. Any further comments, members? Maisie. Thank you, Chair. I'd just say happy to support the application. And I also credit the RBG Urban Design Officer and the applicants for working together because I think the design from the proposed design to where we've ended up now is like a vast improvement. Any further comments? No? So, okay, I too support the application. I think it makes a change to see job creation instead of seeing the demise of commercial space. And I think the extra jobs are going to be a welcome to the borough. So, yeah, I am also in favour. So, all the, everyone in favour of the officer's recommendation with the slight alteration to the condition of how the money will be allocated. All those in favour, please raise your hands. Item four is approved. Thanks, gentlemen. Do we need, do we, I was just going to say, do we need a break before I go into item five? Yep. Quick, a quick five minutes. Thank you. Ah, eyes down for full house. We now move on to item five, garages rear of 296 to 342, 2 Wrinkle Marsh Road, Kidbrook, London, SE3 8ES, reference 251162F. Matthew. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. The application, as you can see on the slide and in the papers, is to demolish a group of 37 garages within a garage court at Rinkle Marsh Road and to replace that with 12 new dwellings. There'll be six one-bedroom flats on the ground floor and six two-bedroom maisonettes on the two floors above. The site is, as outlined in red on the plan, so it's off of, I would call, a loop or a spur off the main part of Rinkle Marsh Road on the southern side of this sort of U-shape containing the garages, which have been boarded off for quite some time now. They're not accessible due to antisocial behaviour. So, it's just a zoomed-in view of the context of the site. So, that's the site in red. The site does include itself part of Rinkle Marsh Road, the highway there, for reasons that will be clearer later on. To the north of the site, we have a row of four-storey, flatted buildings with gardens back onto Rinkle Marsh Road opposite the site. To the east and west, we have two-storey houses, I'd say 50s, 60s-era dwellings, and to the south, we've got longer gardens, which the house is in Holden Road, and they're off the screen to the south, but they're of a similar age to the existing. So, we have two-storey houses to the south, east, and west, and a four-storey block of flats to the north. That just puts a bit of context on the existing character of the area. So, it's quite a narrow site. It would be for garages. The gardens, large gardens to the south of Holman Road, and the flatted building you can see, so sort of north of the site there. A bit of visual context from the ground level here. So, these are all views within Rinkle Marsh Road, the loop itself. So, we have predominantly the building, the brown brick buildings of the flatted development to the north. And the site in the bottom left-hand photograph is to the left-hand side of that grey-blue car. And the development itself is shown to be a terrace containing these 12 units, so six flats at ground floor. Five will be M43, or wheelchair accessible units. Six car parking spaces will be provided in a slightly modified Rinkle Marsh Road on the north side of the road itself. And it's planned to put double yellow lines in along the rest of the road and make it a one-way system, which will be required by traffic order. And the tracking has been shown for both fire appliances, other emergency vehicles, and the council's waste vehicles to work. Coming in from the right-hand side, so from the eastern side, looping around and exiting on the western side. That slide also shows some dimensions between the proposed dwellings and the walls of the adjacent dwellings, so we've got just over 17 metres to the edge of the flats to the north, and 12.5 and 15.9 metres to the buildings on the west side, which front, they're facing the development there. And to the rear, to the south, we're at over 25 metre distance. Apologies, I didn't put a slide on the dimension on for the ones to the east, but from my recollection for the documents, and maybe the applicant can help clarify this. It's about 12 to 15 metre separation to the dwellings to the east, which I'm currently wrote. So this just shows the layout of the upper floor maisonette, so access is from the ground floor, then dedicated entranceway up a staircase to the first floor, the main living area, with a terrace, so the grey area to the right-hand side of each flat is the external space for each flat. And the top slide is the top floor. What I would stress is where what looks from the bottom right-hand corner of each flat looks possibly to be a balcony. It's not. It's the roof of the little outcrop of the living area below. It's not to be used as a roof terrace. Now, just to show a bit of contextual three-dimensional view of the development, so we have the new build with the flat roof. It alternates with the three-storey elements containing the maisonettes, with the lower single-storey elements containing the terrace for the flats. Opposite, the taller buildings to the north, which are on the right-hand side of the slide, and shows the relation between them and then the lower houses to the south, east and west. And that's sort of adding the colour, the tones, if you like, to how it would appear sitting in that neighbourhood. I would stress here that the banding is not a notation of alternating bands of different kind of brickwork. It's just how the images come out. It would be red brick building. That's the front elevation with the access to the ground floor flats with the side doorway leading to the flats above, the maisonettes above. And they will have bin stores on the elevation serving the units there. We can say the windows in the sort of lower section of the building are windows in a wall surrounding the terrace, so that's not part of the internal space. Those are windows which will be obscure glazed as well to give privacy to that terrace. So that's the rear elevation, very similar in a way to the front, less articulation. I'll just clarify that. So on the front elevation, on the left-hand side there, a bit more detail. At ground level, they're proposing to use a textured brick, so a diagonal brick projection, alternating bands to show a little bit of texture and interest at the ground level from street level. with the coloured doorways and also coloured bin store doors as well. Just to complete the picture, the two end elevations and confirming the height is 10.9 metres to the top of the parapet wall. And just to illustrate the type of materials proposed, there is a condition the paper is recommending submission of all materials in any case. But this gives an indication of what the likely materials could look like. Just moving on to the flats themselves, these are the two types of ground floor flats. The one on the left is the wheelchair accessible unit, one on the right is the M42 wheelchair adaptable unit. And it illustrates the, there are these small gardens, for want of a better word, between 3.3 and one and a half metres deep between the back wall and the existing brick wall, which defines the site boundary at the back of the garage court at the moment, with indicative planting shown within it. And these are the, the Maisonette units. And just to illustrate the size of the, the terrace to the side of each unit, it's quite generous, five and a half metres, 5.4 by 4.8 metres width. In terms of neighbour responses, we've had one response only, one objection, raising those issues there, loss of outlook, loss of light, and the character, the architecture, the development being not in keeping with what's there now. In terms of green issues, it's exempt under BNG, because there is nothing there now, it's green, it's all hard, landscaped, on site itself. However, the improvements made are over 100% improvement to BNG. So even though it's not required, it's performing anyway. The UGF is 0.23, which is below 0.4 in the policy. The reason for that is twofold. One is that part of Rickle Marsh Road itself is included within the red line of the site, and a road is a road, it's, it's, you know, non-permeable material, non-green material. So that does affect the score under UGF. And if you were to discount the section of Rickle Marsh Road in the site, the UGF would be a lot higher. But notwithstanding that, there are these improvements, which are in the report, and with the BNG, as it is vastly improving what's already there on site, which is nothing. It includes a green roof, green walls, and numerous trees planted outside the gardens, also indicatively showing planting trees within the gardens as well. And it would achieve a 7% reduction in CO2 emissions over part L of the building regs in itself, and with the remainder made up with the carbon payment offset. It would need to have a director's agreement signed to secure the affordable housing, the 12 units for social rent, and the contributions required under policies. It's quite standard for these Grenoble Bill schemes. There's, here they're highlighted, they're all in the report. One last thing is, I mentioned the roof. I'll go back to the little roof over the first floor edition outcrop. We don't want that to be used as a roof terrace, so I would suggest, recommend if members are minded to approve the application, to add a condition number 28. I put some wording there. Of course, members, feel free to amend the wording as you see fit. But it would stop, I'll show you, go back to the slide, it would stop the roof of the first floor outcrop being used as a, so there on the top left slide, the white highlighted section, is just a roof, it's not, it's got no access onto it, it's not proposed to be in a terrace or a balcony, and if it were to be used, there could be some privacy issues for the neighbours and indeed the residents within this development. So the condition would stop that small area being used as a terrace. And that completes the presentation. Thanks, Matthew. Questions for the officer? David. Thank you, Chair. I don't know whether it would be possible to actually see a picture, a photograph of how the new development, how close to other houses it would be. And can you just tell me how, right, the width of the road at the moment, apparently it's going to be changed, isn't it? If the application goes ahead, it will be widened. And how wide will the road be then? Two very good questions. To the second one, I was thinking, I was looking for that before, whilst Lily was presenting her case, and I haven't got a figure for the road. I've been searching all the application documents. I can't find one. I don't have the ability to measure it, despite trying earlier on this evening. So I do apologise for that. But the applicants will probably have that figure in mind. What I would say, the road has been tracked, and it's been shown to be wide enough to handle not only the parked cars on the north side, but also... I'm using the wrong microphone there. So it's been tracked to that waste vehicles and the emergency vehicles can get around this alignment of the road, as proposed. But I don't have a figure for the exact dimension for the carriageway. I have been looking for it. Can I add to that? Did you say that... Which way did you say it was going to be one way? That's right. So they'll be coming in from the right-hand side on this image. So that's the eastern side, looping round and going out the western side. Because at that right-hand side, what is that sort of... That's not a actual... Is that a garden or a tree? Something where the actual road should be, where you enter. The green circle? Yeah. That's a tree canopy. Is that... So that path is still there? The path is still there. The tree will still be there. The tree will not be affected by the development. And it will still allow for a fire appliance and a waste vehicle to come round. And the double yellow lines, will they as well go down round the side pieces? Or, you know, that's three sides. Will that be... That's as far as I'm aware. That will need to be the subject of an amendment to the traffic order for the area. But I understand the purpose of the yellow lines is to ensure that the fire and emergency services have access around the site, clear access. At the moment, there are no parking restrictions, so cars can park wherever they want on both sides of the road. I don't think they do, but they can. And the idea is to make it more organised, make it more sensible, and make it more safe. So there will be yellow lines around. There will be some parked cars on the north side, but all the necessary emergency vehicles and servicing vehicles will be able to access the road. So looking at that then, Matthew, obviously you've got on-street parking on the roadway, and you're saying that there is enough clearance between those parked cars for waste vehicles and emergency vehicles. So I would estimate that road width to be about five metres. I would say we need to be five metres. Yeah. The parking bays are just over two metres, I believe, themselves. They're narrower than that, but that's been agreed in the pre-application stage with highways. One thing I will add is we have obviously consulted highways team, the waste team, TFL. We've not had any responses from those three consultees. Yeah. But I know at the pre-application stage, highways were supportive of this route. I've seen the information. So that road's going to be at least five to six metres wide, Pat, which is quite substantial. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. buildings that are surrounding it, how close they are to this application. Right. Yes. Please, I know what you... Yeah. So here we go. So on the... Yeah. I can't believe the numbers on that one. On the left-hand side, so on the... Sorry. On this one, so the right-hand side, the image is now... The image is flipped from the other one. There, the distances are... I think from the previous slide, I had it was 15.9 metres. So on the bottom left-hand side now, between the front of that house, which is a Rickle Marsh Road house, to the side of the house itself, which is the three-storey element, the distance is 15.9, and obviously to the side of the single-storey element there, which is the bike store and bin store, is 12.5 metres. It's been looked at for daylights and all that, and it passes all the tests with flying colours on daylight and sunlight assessment. So the neighbours have all been consulted, letter and site notice, etc., and we've not had any... We've not had one negative response, but it's not from those neighbours there. To the rear, so there's over 25 metres spacing between the back of the house and because of the Long Gardens to Holborn Road, to the front, to the north, it's 17.2 metres face of the building to the back of those flats there. OK? Thank you very much, Matthew. David? Thank you very much, Matthew. So I used to represent this area between a few years back now, but I... So I know the flats well. Now, the two points that I picked up are, one, the no play space, so we're not meeting the standard in terms of play space for new developments, and secondly, where there's likely to be children, and secondly, it is way... wayfully low of the UGF, 0.23 rather than 0.4. That could all be solved if some of the roadway was turned into green space. This roadway is rather superfluous in my view. Couldn't... You know, because it just duplicates Rick or Marsh Road, if it's a housing road, which I assume it is rather an adopted highway, wouldn't it be easy just to take in the eastern part of it and turn that into a green play area, so long as you had somewhere vehicles could turn around? And wouldn't that be a much more... Rather than making it a through road, it's therefore just a little cul-de-sac. You know, there are many of these little cul-de-sacs around the borough, I can name a few, and then that area to the east of the road, we're converting heat-generating tarmac into nice green space with some play areas. We're both hitting the UGF and we're hitting the play space requirement. Okay, very good points to make there. In terms of the play space, you're right, none is proposed. There are parks available and I've made that reference in the report to them. It is 900 metres away, Hornfair Park. Yes, it's a little walk, yes. There are other open spaces as well. But this, again, I think we've mentioned earlier in this evening about the need to balance different policy requirements. It's a site that's attracted a lot of antisocial behaviour, I understand, and there's the pressure from the MPPF and indeed the London Plan to make good and effective use of land. So there's always a balance to be made. And yes, it is a shame there's no children's play space provided on site. It is a weakness of the scheme. I won't hide that fact. But there are crossings available, safe crossings available across the roads there on either side of Corelli Road. And ultimately, I think the thinness of the site and trying to get as many units as is reasonably possible has made that something has to give. And in this case, it's play space. In terms of the UGF, I think as I mentioned earlier, because the scheme includes elements of the existing road itself, and yes, they want to enhance the road as set out, that does drag the UGF down. If you were to ignore including the road within the scheme, the red line is drawn around the building elements, it would probably be around 0.4, if not slightly higher. But it's what that is. And they've looked at maximising the roof, green roofs, green walls, tree planting. If there's any scope for any further planting, obviously we can encourage, you can encourage the applicant to do that under a landscaping condition submission. In terms of turning the road into a different format, we have to assess the application before us. We can't redesign the application. It's been assessed in this format, and even with the UGF being what it is, I cannot advocate changing the road layout now because we don't know if another layout would work, quite simply. It is regrettable we don't have comments from TfL and Highways to help. It's a housing road, surely. I'll ask the applicant, well, they're nodding. It is a housing road. There are so many cul-de-sacs with a small number of houses around the borough. It's not difficult. And it would deal with, not only it would deal with those two questions, but it would provide some more green and play space for the whole area around Thelma Gardens and Zangwell Road and so forth and Corelli, which at the moment don't have any play space, short of the walk over the dangerous Shooters Hill Road to Hornfair Park. I can't disagree with those opinions. We just have to assess the scheme before us. And I think with the balance of all the competing policy objectives, I think the recommendation is what we've put forward. most schemes I've ever seen could be enhanced in one way or another. But I believe, I stand by the report, the officers have written that the scheme is considered to be acceptable, looking at the balance in the round and taking all factors into consideration. So if I can just add on the play space element, the core strategy policy only requires play space for over 50 units. and the London plan requires it where the child yield is over 10 and I've just been quickly doing the calculation and the child yield from this is 6.9 children. I don't know quite how you get 0.9 of a child, but that's what it comes out with. So there technically isn't actually a requirement for child play space, but appreciate the other comments in terms of greening. Callum. Cheers. Thank you very much, Matthew. Just a very quick question on the cycle storage. So it's 21. Is that including, so it's every ground floor unit has space for two on site and then there's the communal unit. Is that 21 in total? So including those private ones and the communal. I just wasn't 100% clear. I'd have to go to my reports and look exactly. It's definitely two for each of the ground floor units. I know it's compliant because I've gone through that exercise before some weeks ago when I'm writing the report. I can't say for definite. Absolutely. It's 21 in total without counting them on the slide. It's too small to count on the slide, unfortunately. But again, I think the applicant can confirm that quite easily to be honest with you. But the overall number certainly does comply with the London plan policy. Perfect. My reading would be it was 21 in total so it would be 12 of them being private ones and then the remainder being the communal. but I just wanted to make sure I had it clear in my head. That was all. Pat. Oh, sorry. Dave, Pat. I'm sure this is an inappropriate question. I'm sure you'll stop me, Chair. but a number of us visited a developer not long ago just across the road just across the road from here and I'm thinking in terms of condition three where it talks about the materials that are used and in the past we've had this preference for traditional brick and I'm wondering if if the applicant would be willing to consider looking at this other product which I think was every bit as good as brick it was cheaper than brick lighter than brick quicker and I think it's well worth well worth considering I just add that most of the schemes I've seen by Greenwich bills around the ballot I've been very I've been very impressed with so it's not so much a criticism of what they've done in the past or what they would propose but I just would like to I would like if Vicky could pick this up on the condition three that we actually look at you know what I'm talking about Vicky you were at the meeting weren't you yeah I think our preference is that proper brick real brick has much more longevity and does look visually better than the alternative that you're talking about Councillor Sullivan so the application has been presented as brick and as officers that's what we would like to see it being built soon well I was actually more impressed with the fake brick than brick and I think that was I think that was a consensus at that meeting I think if it's cheaper to build if it's quicker to build and it looks as good as brick why shouldn't we think about it presumably there are sort of various environmental issues involved in that as well anyway I think you can't tell me not to raise it now so no what I was going to come back in on it Dave so over the years the committee especially myself has made comments about modular builds and the wear and tear that council properties have to undertake so what we've done over a period of time we've drifted away from timber modular to steel modular back to conventional brick build and block build simply because council properties have to be built to last and they do undertake an awful lot of wear and tear both internally and externally so I think that's where we've now sort of worked our way back to the traditional builds understanding that we've got a longer lifetime expectancy from the investment made from the council into more traditional build so I think that's where we've come back sort of full circle on ourselves we have explored loads of different options to get more housing for our money but what we've realised is quantity quality is outweighing quantity and we've gone back to a more robust build any further questions for the officer Pat thank you chair I'm looking at in the executive summary 2.2 it states that the six masonettes do not meet the m42 standard because they do not have step free access to the principal living area that's one concern I have but I also have been looking at the garden I'm sure that you said modest gardens and it's I think you said 3.3 metres and I just wondered if that was you know lower than normal standard or and but also the flats at the masonettes they're going to have access to a communal area like a sort of terraced area I might have to ask the applicant more about this because that's going to obviously be on top of the single storey units that are there and I just wondered because again what size they were going to be and whether or not they were going to affect the view and the privacy of other residents there this it's just this is quite new to me anyway this building on top of this terraced garden and I was just wondering about obviously it's got to be if you are going to build on top of a single unit the building materials are going to be obviously very much I've no knowledge of this stronger but there's the safety aspect as well about will there be any sort of obviously it's going to be well used because it's going to be used for a garden will there be any noise coming through to the people living in the single stories the danger aspect yeah sorry I've probably given you too much there that's quite a few points there they're all fine all good points right the M4 2 status yes the reason they don't comply is simply because there's no lift access to the site as I've said in the report the policy setting out about accessibility to dwellings does allow in certain circumstances for small sites which this is under the size and under four stories which this is so there's understanding in awkward sites shall we say where you're trying to put units on them you can relax the M4 2 standard what I would say of course is they are over providing on the M4 3 units which is the wheelchair accessible units so the ones which are higher specs shall we say and so there's rather than having one unit required there's going to be five of those so whilst it's lacking in one respect in terms of the more draconian standard it's better than the policy can require and that's about and the policy supports not for these small awkward sites not having M4 2 anyway garden size all the amenity areas do comply with the sizes in the London plan yes they are small gardens because it's a very tight site I believe about 10 metres front to back so you can't squeeze in everything you would like to squeeze in and these garden sizes but they do get outdoor ground floor space larger than the policy requirement that's those two things in terms of the terraces privacy issue first on the so on both images there on the windows on the terraces it's quite a high parapet wall around the terrace the terrace isn't the level of that height of the wall it's below so they have an obscure glazed windows to both sides of the terrace so it's awkward for them to look out and people can't look in so they are protecting the amenity of the garden users beneath them by not having a direct view over the top so it's been designed with the thought of being respectful to everybody within the development itself privacy wise in terms of noise on safety of course building regulations govern safety and of course there has to be adequate construction put in but of course flatted buildings have the same issue with flats stacked above each other so in the habitable bit the people in the first floor will be above the ground floor units and it's no different in that way and they have to comply the building regulations about quality of construction and things like that roof terraces they're not communal they are individual for the flat so it will not be bold parties going on one would hope but an ordinary everyday use of a terrace like that to be like a garden terrace it's a big space for the size of the unit concerned but it's not unreasonably large and so I think the normal activity going on would be as you would expect in your garden or with your neighbours in their balcony I think that covers all I'd miss anything any further questions no Matthew thank you very much I've got the applicants team do we have questions for the applicant no everyone wants to get home don't they everyone wants to get home so I just wanted to ask no no no no no no no no yeah I was just going to say Lee Matt Bodan you want to come forward questions for the applicant David thank you chair thank you applicants so it is simply the point that it's just not an optimal use of the whole space including the road so we're keeping that rather superfluous road it could be two little things coming either two little access roads coming from either side or it could be cut off as I suggested earlier at the eastern side to provide some greenery and play space but it just seems a bad use overall given it's such a constrained site by reducing the amount of space taken by the road which is very easy you could have either larger gardens or have more green communal space with play equipment on but that opportunity just doesn't seem to have been taken given it's housing land so there's no problems about traffic orders and so forth I wondered why you hadn't looked at that which would obviously help meet our climate objectives as well yeah I mean there was a consideration of that but the fact of the matter is if you're going to service those buildings fire trucks down waste trucks down around the road and out again the difficulty would be if you were to provide the green spaces as suggested perhaps in the centre of that site you would then have to provide larger turning heads for those vehicles at either end of the site which will probably mean that you'd lose a couple of those units so we've maximised it in terms of units we've retained the ability to service the buildings but you're quite right there is no play space or opportunity within that because of the way the road is laid out in its original form the road by the way will be 5.5 metres wide just to confirm that as well sorry Pam what was it Pam just one question yeah I'm very pleased that it's wide enough to take emergency vehicles and yeah I'm happy with that part of it but again I'm just I don't know what it's like what is the parking like on those roads because we're losing nine parking spaces and we've said that there are double yellow lines going to be all the way round to prevent people from parking there so what is parking like it's a question I forgot to ask on the main road yeah I mean because people will have cars I mean the situation with the current parking down there is that people do park there not frequently not many cars park there and that's mainly because of the nature of the site as it currently is being quite anti-social suffering from anti-social behaviour so people don't necessarily like to park their cars in the area what we think here with this proposal is that this will encourage parking within those spaces they're not reserved for the residents of these houses so there is an opportunity for local residents to use those spaces which way do you mean if but I thought it was double yellow no no you can see you can see on the plan above there are six is it six spaces six parking bays four of which are blue batch parking and they're sort of flanked with this new kind of landscape and trees and basically all area to the left from planter and to the right for the planter will be double yellow what is it like on the main road though is it CPZ on the on Rick and Marsh road Beth you want to come in on that yeah sorry there was a parking stress survey done and it found that only approximately half of the available spaces on street were used so parking stress is quite low in the area and is there a CPZ in that area right so no CPZ and ample parking okay any further questions Dave excuse me for asking a similar question because I wasn't very happy with the response have you actually considered alternative materials such as prefabricated materials have you done an assessment of them and or is it that the council's policy is that we stick to more traditional materials it's not as much about council policy this one it's about GLA policy in terms of the grant funding we have to use non flammable materials in the external parts of these buildings so where we've used gone for timber frame and other forms of timber on previous developments any further questions no Lee Matt thank you very much members open for deliberation any comments Maisie thank you chair just to say I'm very happy to support the application and also that architecturally I like it I like the red brick and I like the kind of up and down thing of it I think it's good good application Lade I'm very happy to support this application it's a delight to see an application coming forward there's not 20 30 story building there are livable units very realistic as well and just like Maisie said it's the fact that I love the red bricks and it fits with the character of that street I've looked at you know online though not physically there I looked at the character of the street and the design fits into the character of the street which is really brilliant I love the fact that they're going to have disabled access units which is really really much needed because I know that there are people on the waiting least to need wheelchair access buildings so it's really brilliant thanks Pat Dave David sorry oh yes I will be supporting this application and I am really pleased that there are sort of opportunities for the one bedroom for people who've got any disabilities I'm supporting it but I would really really you know please can you watch it's the emergency vehicles that you know they must this comes up time and time again they have to have we have to know that they can enter and leave the site without any problem but yes I will be supporting it thank you David yeah I obviously support the application obviously we need absolutely the social housing to congratulate the Greenwich build team I still think it's a poor configuration far too much tarmac not enough greenery but you know we can't have everything so I'm supporting the application thanks any further comments from members Callum thank you very much and I hope that we'll see more of you with similar applications like this because I mean I certainly know from my casework housing is the biggest thing and this is exactly the kind of development that we as a borough need to be getting fully behind so thank you very much thanks yep I'm going to support the application I think it's it's been a long time coming where we've actually seen some social housing delivery I forget the last time that I saw anything on any application with social rent so very much welcome with that in mind I'm now going to put this to the vote there was a suggestion of condition 28 Matthew do you want to refresh us on that yes the additional condition to safeguard the well stop the use of the first floor roof outcrop from being used as a terrace balcony it's not shown to be that use but the condition would certainly prevent that happening so and it's not say it's not going to disadvantage the development at all but it would be safeguarding the the privacy of the residents so would you would right so I'm going to put this to the vote with that inclusion yeah okay so all those in favor of the officers recommendation with the inclusion of condition 28 please raise your hand unanimous item 5 is approved thank you all for your patience thank you for coming thanks for for thanks so much I'll see you next time yeah there is a good air 어
Summary
The Royal Borough of Greenwich Planning Board met to discuss planning applications for the redevelopment of the VIP Trading Estate and the construction of affordable homes on Wricklemarsh Road. The board approved both applications, with conditions relating to transport contributions and construction standards.
VIP Trading Estate Redevelopment
The board approved the application for the redevelopment of Plot A of the VIP Trading Estate, located on Anchor and Hope Lane, for an industrial/logistics warehouse with ancillary office space. The redevelopment was approved subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement1. The application sought permission for the redevelopment of the site for an industrial/logistics warehouse with ancillary office, creation of new access and associated parking, servicing, landscaping and other associated works. The proposed development would consist of a three-storey warehouse building, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, albeit at a reduced service between 6pm and 6am.
Lillian Durie, Planning Officer, presented the application, highlighting that the site is located within the Charlton Riverside Opportunity Area and Strategic Development Location. She noted the scheme's compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the London Plan and the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies. The proposal would increase the floor space from 579.8 square metres to 4,838 square metres, and would create between 42 and 81 jobs within the borough. The scheme would also achieve a BREEAM2 excellent rating, be air quality neutral, and achieve a 30.19% biodiversity net gain. During the discussion, Councillor Patricia Greenwell raised concerns about the consultation process, noting that only one public comment was received. She also questioned the allocation of £50,000 towards bus stop enhancements, given that no bus route currently goes into Anchor and Hope Lane.
In response, Ms Durie clarified that the consultation was conducted via a site notice, press notice, and letters to neighbours. She also noted that the £2,000 contribution would improve tactile paving at access points and maintain the eastbound Bugsby's Way bus stop.
Councillor David Gardner raised concerns about accessibility from Charlton Station, the urban greening factor, and compliance with London Plan Policy T73. Ms Durie explained that an active travel zone assessment identified potential improvements to accessibility, and a contribution of £2,000 was secured for these improvements. She also clarified that the urban greening factor did not need to comply because of the site's B2 and B8 use class designations4. George Jackson, owner of the Jackson Lift Group, spoke in support of the application, highlighting the decline in industrial land in Greenwich and the potential for job creation. He also noted that the proposals had been widely consulted on with local businesses and residents.
Alex Hickman from Greater London Industrial (GLI) explained that the development would transform an underutilised brownfield site into a high-quality industrial employment hub. He noted that the scheme is targeting BREEAM Excellent and would achieve a 30% biodiversity net gain.
Following the presentations and discussion, the board voted to approve the application, with an amendment to the condition of how the money will be allocated.
Garages at Wricklemarsh Road
The board approved the application for the demolition of existing garages and the construction of a part 3, part 1 storey residential building providing twelve affordable homes on Wricklemarsh Road, Kidbrooke. The approval was subject to conditions and the completion of a Director's Agreement.
Matthew Broome, Planning Officer, presented the application, noting that the proposal would provide six one-bedroom flats on the ground floor and six two-bedroom maisonettes on the two floors above. Six car parking spaces would be provided, and the road would be made a one-way system.
During the discussion, Councillor Gardner raised concerns about the lack of play space and the low urban greening factor. He suggested turning part of the roadway into green space to address these issues.
In response, Mr Broome acknowledged the lack of play space but noted that there are parks available nearby. He also explained that the inclusion of the roadway within the site area dragged the urban greening factor down.
Councillor Sullivan raised the possibility of using alternative, prefabricated materials for the construction. However, this suggestion was not supported by other members, who expressed a preference for traditional brick.
Councillor Greenwell raised concerns about the M42 standard5 not being met by the maisonettes and questioned the size of the gardens. Mr Broome clarified that the M42 standard was not required for small sites and that the garden sizes complied with London Plan standards.
Following the presentations and discussion, the board voted to approve the application, with the inclusion of an additional condition to prevent the roof of the first-floor outcrop being used as a terrace.
-
Section 106 agreements are legal agreements between local authorities and developers; these are used to mitigate the impact of new developments on the community and infrastructure. ↩
-
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) is a sustainability assessment method used to masterplan, improve and certify assets at any stage, from design and construction to in-use and refurbishment. ↩
-
London Plan Policy T7 relates to deliveries, servicing and construction, and seeks to manage the environmental impact of freight and deliveries. ↩
-
Use Class B2 refers to general industrial use, while Use Class B8 refers to storage and distribution. ↩
-
M4(2) refers to the 'accessible and adaptable dwellings' standard under Building Regulations. ↩
Attendees










Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.
Meeting Documents
Additional Documents